Harry Reid and Barack Obama want a government shutdown.

[Adre]

Except it isn't a "right."

In an 'exceptional' country it should be. Tell me what's more important than having good health.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Liberty.

What good is liberty if you can't enjoy it?

 

[koalabear]

In an 'exceptional' country it should be. Tell me what's more important than having good health.

Having very little government intrusion into your life.

 

[eyer]

Rob and the Democrats desperately want a shutdown. They believe they gain political ground against the Pubs, but they need to review the polls after the shutdown of 95.

You and Rob and Ulaven_Demorte should stop all the measly, political nit-picking...

...it's not like you all three don't firmly share fundamental views.

Eg, you're all simple-minded partisan hacks and you all support an adult cybering with a 14-year old kid...

...revel in what unites you, and quit bickering with your bros.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

What good is liberty if you can't enjoy it?

Who cares as long as HE gets to enjoy it?
The party of ME, fuck everyone else!

 

[Adre]

Having very little government intrusion into your life.

Tell me how much you'd care about that if you were a diabetic about to lose a foot because you couldn't afford the preventive medicine.

 

[Adre]

Liberty.

I think life and the pursuit of happiness were mentioned as well.

 

[koalabear]

Tell me how much you'd care about that if you were a diabetic about to lose a foot because you couldn't afford the preventive medicine.

It would be too late too care.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

Yes we know, liberals love communism.

What the fuck?

What does a national single-payer insurance plan have to do with communism? You're seriously off your nut.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Harry Reid is acting like this is getting in the way of his tee time.


Barack won't let it get in the way of his...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So Obama knew 5-6 years ago when he came up with the ACA that it would later shut down government?

That is about as stupid a thing as you have ever posted.

Do you think about what you are saying or just go straight to the knee-jerk?

I'll tell you what he did know, that it was just a step to universal single-payer. Of course, if it were to actually work as well as we were told it was going to, then who would want to change it? So if he has a goal and a brilliant working plan does not advance that goal, then the real goal must be Cloward-Piven; make the little people feel pain so that they clamor for the Democrats to rush in and give them totally free health care like they have in all the civilized exceptional countries.


“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.

My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president. I would hope that we can set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.
Barack Obama, March 2007, SEIU Health Care Forum

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Senator Barack Hussein Obama, 2006

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
Barack Hussein Obama

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

5 or 6 years ago Obama should have had a plan to boost the economy with good paying jobs, not any of this silly ass part time crap, that the media is flaunting, but then again, his Community Organizer experience really paid off with everybody making the same big bucks, right.

Wrong.

More brilliance from the Left.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

People will suffer. Obama will refuse to pay the military, despite statutory authority to do so, the parks and museums will be closed, no meat inspections, private sector economic activity requiring government inspection will be shut down. Obama will punish the civil society for demanding a smaller government, but no bureaucrat will lose his job, no layoffs at EPA, DOE, Education, IRA, Homeland Security...

Just like the sequester, he will punish the people in every way he can.

Just like the sequester, we will learn exactly how much of this is pure fear-mongering and pretty much get another lesson on how much actual waste is built into each department's budget.

He has the power of the press, they will write whatever story he demands and as we can easily see, his myrmidons will use the power of echo and he is eager to have this shutdown because he sees it as making him popular again.

And you are very right; the Oligarchy of the ruling class will be touched not one wit by this; they do not care.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Rob and the Democrats desperately want a shutdown. They believe they gain political ground against the Pubs, but they need to review the polls after the shutdown of 95.

Those polls do not count.

The only thing that counts is what the press printed at the time.

Have you seen how many reporters are being hired and marrying into the administration???





Free Press?

My ass!!!

Pravda

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You were less interested in what the majority wants when it came to firearm registration. (Some of us actually think the right to affordable health care is at least as important as the right to own firearms. I support both, btw.)

The majority you think of was a brief shining moment in the wake of tragedy.

Health care is not a right.

This is what brought down the French Revolution: a cornucopia of the rights of man.

He has only THREE.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In an 'exceptional' country it should be. Tell me what's more important than having good health.

Liberty, Life and Property.

With the mandate we are now property.

This means we have none of our actual god-given rights, only the rights of man and if the government looks over your records with the help of your doctor who only get reimbursed by meek compliance and they see that you have engaged in an activity, like owning a gun, that Socialism do not approve of, then they can deny you good health. They can deny you anything for you have voted to become a ward for Social RIghts have to be paid by someone. Your natural rights are free.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What good is liberty if you can't enjoy it?

What good is liberty and the pursuit of happiness if someone in Washington DC gets to define happiness?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Tell me how much you'd care about that if you were a diabetic about to lose a foot because you couldn't afford the preventive medicine.

Is it any better when the government says that you have used all of your benefit and because you will not pay enough tax to recoup the operation, that it is the best thing for you to have some counseling on how best to live without your foot?

Putting government in charge does not change the laws of limited resource.


We have already seen that the close interdependence of all economic phenomena makes it difficult to stop planning just where we wish and that, once the free working of the market is impeded beyond a certain degree, the planner will be forced to extend his control until they become all-comprehensive. These economic considerations, which explain why it is impossible to stop deliberate control just where we would wish, are strongly reinforced by certain social or political tendencies whose strength makes itself increasingly felt as planning extends.

Once it becomes increasingly true, and is generally recognized, that the position of the individual is determined not by impersonal forces, not as a result of the competitive efforts of many, but by the deliberate decision of authority; the attitude of the people towards their position in the social order necessarily changes. There will always exist inequalities which appear just to those who suffer, disappointments which will appear unmerited, and strokes of misfortune which those hit have not deserved. But when these things occur in a society which is consciously directed, they way in which people will react will be very different from what it is when they are nobody's conscious choice.
From Who, Whom?
FA Hayek, Road to Serfdom, Chapter eight p. 137


"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand."
Milton Friedman

... under the name of the state the citizens taken collectively are considered as a real being, having its own life, its own wealth, independently of the lives and the wealth of the citizens themselves; and then each addresses this fictitious being, some to obtain from it education, others employment, others credit, others food, etc., etc. Now the state can give nothing to the citizens that it has not first taken from them.
Frédéric Bastiat

 

[mercury14]

When Republicans want something that America hates, AJ calls it a liberal plot to make Republicans want that thing.

Just like the sequester. The GOP in the House voted unanimously to keep it in the budget but then fault Obama for wanting it.